XCOL - partial source datasets for sawflies

[ManonGros]

Based on this issue: https://github.com/gbif/backbone-feedback/issues/321

Here are possible checklists that could be integrated in order to help fill the taxonomic gap with sawflies:

• Liston A, Knight G, Sheppard D, Broad G, Livermore L (2014) Checklist of British and Irish Hymenoptera - Sawflies, ‘Symphyta’. Biodiversity Data Journal 2: e1168. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.2.e1168 is already published as a checklist on GBIF: https://doi.org/10.15468/euxsug
• Goulet, Henri & Bennett, Andrew. (2021). Checklist of the sawflies (Hymenoptera) of Canada, Alaska and Greenland. Journal of Hymenoptera Research. 82. 21-67. 10.3897/jhr.82.60057.
• Saini, Malkiat & Blank, Stephan & Smith, David. (2006). Checklist of the Sawflies (Hymenoptera: Symphyta) of India.. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264328999_Checklist_of_the_Sawflies_Hymenoptera_Symphyta_of_India)
• I see that there is also an occurrence dataset on GBIF for the ECatSym: Electronic World Catalog of Symphyta (https://doi.org/10.15468/takraf). Maybe they could be convinced to share a checklist?

[ManonGros]

I was told by a user that https://sdei.de/ecatsym/ is a good reference (I assume it is the same people publishing this occurrence dataset).

[camiplata]

Hi Marie, thanks for pointing out these sources.

To intermediately add Liston A, Knight G, Sheppard D, Broad G, Livermore L (2014) Checklist of British and Irish Hymenoptera - Sawflies, ‘Symphyta’. Biodiversity Data Journal 2: e1168. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.2.e1168 on GBIF: https://doi.org/10.15468/euxsug, to the extended release of COL checklist we need the license to be changes to cc by. From a larger analysis we made from the checklists coming from Biodiversity Data Journal all datasets are cc by except some 19 from 2014-2016. If I remember correctly this was the time when the use of creative commons licenses was taking place on GBIF, so maybe is safe to assume that this dataset is also CC-BY.

Do you see feasible this change of license? If your answer is yes maybe we can updated all the 19 datasets form BDJ that have an 'unespecified' license.

Besides this we will look at all these sources an evaluate the best strategy to derive a list to fill the gap.

[ManonGros]

Hi @camiplata I downloaded the archive and it looks like there was a license associated with the dataset: CC-BY. The problem is that it wasn't formatted in a way that we could interpret. I now added the license manually to the dataset in question. We will check with Pensoft to see if they could reformat the information in their archives. In the meanwhile, let me know if there are other license-less datasets that need attention.

[camiplata]

Thanks Marie, I have added the Sawflies dataset from BDJ to the xrelease! I will send by email a list of the other BDJ checklists with missing licenses.

On the other side I have made a quick check to the "ECatSym" derive checklist form GBIF, it looks like it does not represent the entire database that is online, but it could be a start if they don't have immediate availability to share the DB behind https://sdei.de/ecatsym/ .

• GENUS 654 in contrast to 817 on the website
• SPECIES 3734 in contrast to 8855 on the website
• SUBSPECIES 109 in contrast to 248 on the website

Although https://sdei.de/ecatsym/ hasn't been updated since 2018 I see that the lead researcher Andreas Taeger has publications of new species until 2022 maybe we could have some luck there. Do you have contact with him or with someone from Senckenberg to start a conversation from there? If not, we can address them from COL.

[heermoes]

Hello, I am a user and also reported the issue lately. I can also suggest the following list for the family Pergidae: https://pergidae.snsb-zsm.de/wp-content/uploads/Schmidt_Smith_2006_World_Catalogue_Pergidae.pdf This is a pdf but the authors probably have more useable files. With Sawflies the problem is that not many people work on it. I think it would be very hard to always keep it up to date. But when there is a good structure it would be way better. Maybe you could also use this dutch database as a basis. I know that it is up to date for the current dutch knowledge en is kept up to date very well. https://www.nederlandsesoorten.nl/linnaeus_ng/app/views/species/nsr_taxon.php?id=172922.

[ManonGros]

Hi @camiplata sorry I never followed up, we have some contacts at Senckenberg but this is such a big organisations that it would make more sense to contact Andreas Taeger directly since he is also the contact for the occurrence dataset (https://www.gbif.org/dataset/bd63a93c-8283-11e2-b873-00145eb45e9a). Feel free to CC us when needed. Thanks!

[camiplata]

FYI we got a positive response from the Electronic World Catalog of Symphyta, we are aiming to have a clear work road map at the end of April.

[mdoering]

See https://github.com/CatalogueOfLife/data/issues/579